most of the people that advocate war arent willing to make any sacfrifices for it.

your assertion that congress' children are over represented is flawed. look at your sample size which includes women, children and adolescents and then compare it to that of congress.

Um ok, lets cut the relevant population of the US down to 1/10 of what I previously said (which is clearly *way* too much, put I'll do it just to prove the point). The parent/child-in-Iraq ratio is still almost twice that in congress as in the general population.

Additionally, what you've essentially said in requiring the general population to be counted w/o women and children is that women can't serve in congress. I doubt that Nancy Pelosi would agree with you.

Having children or serving in war are not necessary to consider the question of war, but it helps. It also enhances credibility.

Considering war or not war is difficult.

That is why I have said that we should consider war carefully and fully. We should not rush to war and we should be especially careful when considering pre-emptive war.

I think the principles of just war should be applied. They were not applied to this war.

I agree with all of these points, except the necessity to apply Just War principles. While I admire the principles and their articulators, I think they serve best as a sort of compass. Straying from them slighly at times will most likely keep us on course. Severe deviations should only be taken with great consideration. I'd recommend a book called "A Just War on Terror," if you're a general admirer of Just War Theory.

All feelings about the rightness or wrongness of the war aside, it's obvious to me that an unduly high percentage of soldiers are lower-middle class to poor.

I don't know if that's true. I haven't ever seen statistics to support that point, only assertions. It very well may be true, but I'd like to see a break-down of income and parents income at time of enlistment in the army vs. a general breakdown of income in the general population. In my admittedly limited experience, most of the people I knew who went into the military were middle/upper middle class.

All feelings about the rightness or wrongness of the war aside, it's obvious to me that an unduly high percentage of soldiers are lower-middle class to poor. Of course, they sign on voluntarily and are paid to be ready for war, so when war comes, while I would like to see as many of them come out alive as possible, it's not like it's unexpected that some will give their lives. I understand that many of them are doing what they have to do to survive or take care of families, and my heart goes out to them. I wish them the best, and I hope we use our most efficient means to win any and all wars while preseving as many lives as possible. That said, it does not in any way affect my judgment on the rightness or wrongness of going to war in the first place.

I think that the difference between the upper classes and lower classes is that if you're in the military and you're rich, you're doing so because you believe in a cause, whereas if you're poor it's probably putting your life on the line because you feel financially forced to do so. But don't underestimate the patriotism or courage of many of my good lower-class friends who have made military a career. It's a badge of pride for them, and they're fighting for a cause they believe in.

In all honesty, people who female dog about them having to go fight a war piss them off, because they know that ultimately that's their job. Many of them think people of Jeffjoe's persuasion are reducing them to an appeal to emotion, and cheapening their sacrifices by using the fact that they make those sacrifices to play on peoples' heartstrings. It's not fair to idealize our military, or to subjugate their sacrifices to idealism. Especially when the realities of the world are far different from the simplistic war=bad peace=good equation.

Having children or serving in war are not necessary to consider the question of war, but it helps. It also enhances credibility.

Considering war or not war is difficult.

That is why I have said that we should consider war carefully and fully. We should not rush to war and we should be especially careful when considering pre-emptive war.

I think the principles of just war should be applied. They were not applied to this war.

I agree with all of these points, except the necessity to apply Just War principles. While I admire the principles and their articulators, I think they serve best as a sort of compass. Straying from them slighly at times will most likely keep us on course. Severe deviations should only be taken with great consideration. I'd recommend a book called "A Just War on Terror," if you're a general admirer of Just War Theory.

Tim, were your friends college graduates who ended up being officers in the military? The vast majority of military members did come from middle / lower middle / poor class. There are many members of the military who are on food stamps and some even on welfare. There are of course exceptions who were financially well-off before their military service; however, they are they exception.

In addition, on a personal note could you please not generalize all military members as "Army"? I know that wasn't your intentions; however, it really drives me nuts when people identify all military members as Army members.

All feelings about the rightness or wrongness of the war aside, it's obvious to me that an unduly high percentage of soldiers are lower-middle class to poor.

I don't know if that's true. I haven't ever seen statistics to support that point, only assertions. It very well may be true, but I'd like to see a break-down of income and parents income at time of enlistment in the army vs. a general breakdown of income in the general population. In my admittedly limited experience, most of the people I knew who went into the military were middle/upper middle class.

All feelings about the rightness or wrongness of the war aside, it's obvious to me that an unduly high percentage of soldiers are lower-middle class to poor. Of course, they sign on voluntarily and are paid to be ready for war, so when war comes, while I would like to see as many of them come out alive as possible, it's not like it's unexpected that some will give their lives. I understand that many of them are doing what they have to do to survive or take care of families, and my heart goes out to them. I wish them the best, and I hope we use our most efficient means to win any and all wars while preseving as many lives as possible. That said, it does not in any way affect my judgment on the rightness or wrongness of going to war in the first place.

I think that the difference between the upper classes and lower classes is that if you're in the military and you're rich, you're doing so because you believe in a cause, whereas if you're poor it's probably putting your life on the line because you feel financially forced to do so. But don't underestimate the patriotism or courage of many of my good lower-class friends who have made military a career. It's a badge of pride for them, and they're fighting for a cause they believe in.

In all honesty, people who female dog about them having to go fight a war piss them off, because they know that ultimately that's their job. Many of them think people of Jeffjoe's persuasion are reducing them to an appeal to emotion, and cheapening their sacrifices by using the fact that they make those sacrifices to play on peoples' heartstrings. It's not fair to idealize our military, or to subjugate their sacrifices to idealism. Especially when the realities of the world are far different from the simplistic war=bad peace=good equation.